Williams v. Reiss Eisenpress L.L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Reiss Eisenpress L.L.P.

49 A.D.3d 423, 854 N.Y.2d 62

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 423 (Williams v. Reiss Eisenpress L.L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Reiss Eisenpress L.L.P., 49 A.D.3d 423, 854 N.Y.2d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[424]*424On a motion to dismiss, a complaint must be accorded every favorable inference (see Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]). Plaintiff avers, without contradiction, that she was a client of defendants prior to the execution of the revised separation agreement, even though the agreement contains an acknowledgment that she was not represented by counsel. Plaintiff alleges this language was inserted at the advice of her attorney, as protection in the event her husband sought to set aside the agreement, since he had appeared without counsel. Under these circumstances, it was error to conclude as a matter of law that no attorney-client relationship existed. Finally, the complaint adequately alleged the facts underlying the claimed malpractice and the resulting damages. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[424]*424On a motion to dismiss, a complaint must be accorded every favorable inference (see Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]). Plaintiff avers, without contradiction, that she was a client of defendants prior to the execution of the revised separation agreement, even though the agreement contains an acknowledgment that she was not represented by counsel. Plaintiff alleges this language was inserted at the advice of her attorney, as protection in the event her husband sought to set aside the agreement, since he had appeared without counsel. Under these circumstances, it was error to conclude as a matter of law that no attorney-client relationship existed. Finally, the complaint adequately alleged the facts underlying the claimed malpractice and the resulting damages. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 423, 854 N.Y.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-reiss-eisenpress-llp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack